The court emphasized the importance of judicial discretion regarding the addition of parties, concluding that the presence of a proforma defendant did not aid in the adjudication of the core issues at hand.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral)

By way of instant petition, challenge has been laid to order dated 25.02.2025, passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Dalhousie, District Chamba in Civil Suit No.07 of 2023, whereby the application of the respondents herein/plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure ( for short, “the Code”) has been allowed and M/s Ebike has been added as proforma defendant.

2. The parties hereafter shall be referred by the same status as they hold before the original Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for recovery of Rs.22,50,000/- against defendant Nagesh Mahajan on the premise that the said defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiffs for setting up a Beer Bar and a lounge at the first floor of his property nfamed as “Avondale Shopping Arcade”, Mall Road, Dalhousie. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaitntiffs and defendant Nagesh Mahajan had executed an agreement. The plaintiffs have alleged that since defendant Nagesh Mahajan had defaulted in performing the terms and conditions of the agreement, the plaintiffs had become entitled to recover the suit amount, which includhed the principal amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rgs.7,50,000/- as default fee.

4. The defendant is contesting the suit and has filed his written statement. An objection has been raised as to the maintainability of the suit. As per the defendant, agreement dated 18.12.2018 was void. On merits, though the defendant has admitted the execution of agreement dated 18.12.2018, but according to him firstly, the said agreement was void and secondly, it was not acted upon. Thus, the defendant has categorically denied having received any amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiffs.

5. The plaintiffs filed replication. In the replication, the plaintiffs introduced a new fact that the money was transferred by the plaintiffs to defendant from one of their business accounts maintained in the name and style of Ebike.

6. Issues were framed by learnefd trial Court and the parties have been afforded opportunity to lead evidence. The plaintiffs are stated to have conctluded their evidence.

7. This Court has been informed that during the period when the plaintiffs were leading their evidence, they filed one application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code to implead M/s Ebike, a partnership firm, as proforma defendant. In theh application, it was averred that since the money sought tgo be recovered by the plaintiffs by way of suit was remitted from the account of M/s Ebike and in order to get true version of facts the said entity i.e. M/s Ebike was necessary to be arrayed as proforma defendant. As per the plaintiffs, the addition of M/s Ebike as proforma defendant would enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the suit.

8. The application was opposed by filing a reply. The contents therein were denied. The defendant specifically denied having received any amount from M/s Ebike.

9. Learned trial Court vide impugned order has allowed the application on the grounds that the plaintiffs have to decide against whom they want or intend to seek relief from the Court. It was also observed that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant if the applicfation was allowed. According to learned trial Court, M/s Ebike was a necessary party to the suit. t

10. Having considered the records and rival submissions made by learned counsel for t